Peter

(1:01 PM)

Hi everyone, and thanks very much for joining our Giant Killers chat this afternoon.

Jack Hertzberg (Fayetteville, AR)

I am a die heart Southern Miss fan. I know if they get in the tournament they have giant killers potential, but getting in is a big if. Can you speak to your thoughts on Southern Miss' chances of getting an at-large bid, because none of the other ESPN writers seem to be very high on them.

Peter

(1:03 PM)

Let's start with the team we are all pulling for at GK Central! Our statistical model has consistently rated Southern Miss as one of the top potential Killers in the country, with about a 40% chance of beating a generic Giant.

Peter

(1:07 PM)

But you're right, they're no guarantee to get in unless they win their conference, and there's a big pileup atop the C-USA. And history is no guide: Since the conference took its current shape, it has sent an average of exactly 1.5 teams per year to the NCAA tournament. Southern Miss and La. Tech would be formidable Killers, while UTEP and Tulsa rate horribly according to our model. I would like to see both of our highly rated Killers make it, because I think the NCAA tournament should be about giving underdogs a chance to show their stuff, more than rewarding the fifth- or seventh- or ninth-best teams from power conferences. But that's really just my opinion. Southern Miss, with all their aggressiveness and hitting the boards and crazy shooting, is a LOT of fun to watch.

Bryan (Springdale, AR)

The Razorbacks may not be a Giant Killer due to not playing a team 5 spots higher in the first round of the tourney, but does their 3 point shooting, full-court press, and tenacious defense make them a Giant Killer?

Peter

(1:09 PM)

Yes, they have a shot, but they have vulnerabilities: on the perimeter, on the defensive glass. Also, they play at an extremely fast pace, which tends to let better teams back into games.

nick (wisconsin)

Will Iona be a giant killer?

Peter

(1:10 PM)

They're the best Killer in the MAAC.

Anders (Seattle, Washington)

What does the model think of Virginia Military?

Peter

(1:14 PM)

A VMI question! Every year, VMI has some of the most extreme and interesting stats in the country. Right now they've got as good a shot as anyone to win the Big South, but the whole conference has been very weak. VMI is really undersized, and their style lends itself to protecting the ball much more than generating turnovers, which Killers usually need to do. Far worse, they shoot a ton of threes, but they're under 32% from downtown. That's really bad. Doesn't look like their year to beat an overdog.

Anders (Seattle, Washington)

Who are the best GK candidates in the WAC and Pac-12? Even if they have losing records (I'm guessing UMKC is up there in the WAC)

Peter

(1:17 PM)

It's a rough year for both of these conferences. A bunch of Pac-12 teams have some of the worst Killer ratings in the country, like Arizona State and Stanford. I'm not sure any Pac-12 team is going to make the tournament and be seeded as a Killer. Colorado is probably the best bet.

Peter

(1:18 PM)

New Mexico State is the best bet in the WAC, but doesn't play much like a Killer -- sloppy with turnovers on both ends. They're just a better team than anyone else out there.

Anthony (NYC)

Peter, in the long run do you think following the logic of your giant killer analysis when actually making tourney pics will produce better results or this all more of an interesting academic exercise that is too hard to put into practice in the real world?

Peter

(1:22 PM)

We have a pretty good record of spotting surprises before they happen. So I do think it's a way to spot both interesting sleepers and mis-seeds. If the NCAA selection committee gets better at slotting teams, like by ditching the absurd RPI for something that includes margin of victory in their deliberations, that second part will get harder. But it's also a way to get to know the Cleveland States and Southern Mississippis of the world, and to enjoy the tournament before everything comes down to Lousiville vs. Duke.

sri (Dallas)

Can SMU be a giant killer

Peter

(1:24 PM)

SMU shoots threes less often than almost any team in the country. They also throw the ball away on more than 20% of possessions. That's a really tough combo to carry into games against better teams. Our model doesn't see them as a Killer.

Colin (Chicago)

Are there any conferences that typically produce Giant Killers?

Peter

(1:27 PM)

The way we rate strength of schedule is independent of conferences, and beyond that we haven't found particular conferences to be significant. There don't seem to be many examples of whole conferences adopting Killer-style play after one team succeeds -- didn't happen in the Colonial after George Mason or after VCU, for example. This year, we have a couple of sleepers projected to do well from very weak conferences, and we'll see if our model has accounted enough for their quality of opposition.

Bryan (Springdale, AR)

In your opinion, if a Giant Killer does kill a Giant in the first two round, but gets blown out by 15 or more in the 3rd round or later, should they be banned from tourney play the following season? Shouldn't a team that is going to eliminate a powerhouse validate that win by playing games closely so as to not render the upset as purely luck?

Peter

(1:30 PM)

What? No, of course not! First of all, just because you beat Georgetown in the Round of 64 doesn't mean you're supposed to beat Arizona in the next round. The teams get harder! Just as important, playing a high-risk/high-reward style means you're more likely to get blown out precisely because you're increasing your chances of winning. Successful Giant Killers often look terrible in their exit game.

Dr. Horace (Tulane)

Is this Giant Killing chat a derivation on our love of the underdog?

Peter

(1:31 PM)

I would say all of Giant Killers is a derivation, if not a statistical meditation, on our love of the underdog!

Jordan Brenner

(1:31 PM)

Peter

(1:31 PM)

And with that, I will turn things over to my lovely and talented co-author, Jordan Brenner.

Dave (Stamford)

Could you give more detail about your alternative to the RPI and how margin of victory, among other things should be factored into a rankings system?

Jordan Brenner

(1:33 PM)

Sure. The RPI is archaic -- no one who is worth his salt as a basketball analyst uses it anymore. Measures like the BPI or KenPom.com's ratings are far, far more accurate indicators of a team's strength. The fact that the Selection Committee remains focused on the RPI when there are several better alternatives is alarming, to say the least.

Hensley (Roy, New Mexico)

Is Gonzaga a giant or a giant "killer"?

Jordan Brenner

(1:35 PM)

Well, sometimes they zig. And sometimes they ... ZAG! But seriously, GK status is purely based on seeding. So, if they play a team that is seeded 5 spots better, they'll be a Killer in that game. If they play a team where they are the better seed by at least 5 spots, they'd be a Giant.

Jon (Delaware)

Thoughts on Delaware?? Those guys have 4 guards that can play! Could you see an FGCU like run with these guys pending the matchups??

Jordan Brenner

(1:38 PM)

Our model thinks the Blue Hens are a solid team, but not a great Killer. For a guard-heavy team, they really struggle to force turnovers, which is critical for a good GK. They're also lousy on the glass at both ends and play extremely fast, when a slower pace tends to work better for Giant Killers.

Chris Fiegler (Latham,NY)

Who was the Last Unbeaten NCAA Men's College Basketball Team to be the National Champions?

Jordan Brenner

(1:40 PM)

Did this morph into trivia night? That would be the 1976 Indiana Hoosiers.

Chris (Louisville)

What about the Dayton Flyers? They are team that has proven they can knock off big name teams year after year.

Jordan Brenner

(1:43 PM)

Our model sees Dayton as a decent potential GK. They do a really good job on the glass at both ends, which helps generate extra possessions. They play slow. They force turnovers. The one concern is that they don't shoot a lot of 3-pointers.

Bob (New Jersey)

How far will Michigan go?

Jordan Brenner

(1:45 PM)

Michigan is surprisingly vulnerable against Giant Killers. Why? They lose the possession battle because they don't force turnovers or grab offensive rebounds. That means a GK doesn't have to be especially efficient to beat the Wolverines if they are able to get extra possessions.

Tom (Maine)

I didn't realize this was a trivia chat. Who was the last winless team to win the national title?

Jordan Brenner

(1:46 PM)

Well played, sir. And we adore your toothpaste.

Bryan (Springdale, AR)

But that is what is annoying about a Giant Killer: they provide a great upset, but also provide a lackluster game when the tournament is supposed to be very competitive. If they can't exit the tourney with a competitive game, I rather just see 2 heavyweights go at it in the Elite Eight. I really think there is some merit to telling a Giant Killer "if you win today, you better lose by 10 or less in every subsequent game or you will be banned from the postseason next year." That would send a strong message to those teams.

Jordan Brenner

(1:47 PM)

You know who else loses by double-digits? Heavyweights. And what would the strong message be? "Don't try to win?" OK ...

Mike (Chicago)

Is UMass a Giant or a Killer? Either way, what do you think of them?

Jordan Brenner

(1:51 PM)

Well, Joe Lunardi currently has UMass as a 7-seed, meaning their opening game wouldn't qualify as a GK matchup (no 5-seed difference). If they win, though, they'd get a shot as a GK against a No. 2 seed. Sadly, the model doesn't like UMass as a GK at all. They don't shoot 3's, don't get defensive boards, don't force turnovers and play fast. That's a bad combo when you're trying to generate an upset.

Eric Fredericks (Dobson, NC)

Do you think Wichita State has enough to win the National Championship?

Jordan Brenner

(1:53 PM)

Sure. But the Shockers also have some issues that could cost them against an 8/9 seed. They're not nearly as safe, according to our model, as the other likely top seeds. That's largely a result of their questionable schedule strength -- our model sees that as a real red flag.

Bryan (Springdale, AR)

Guarantee I will smoke you guys in the bracket challenge. While you guys will have 4 Giant Killers in the final four and praying for upsets throughout the tourney, I will be sitting pretty with a few big dogs still in the hunt.

Jordan Brenner

(1:54 PM)

Wait, you mean Vermont, Southern Miss, Harvard and Stephen F. Austin is not a likely Final Four?

Brian (Milwaukee)

Will we see the 16 take down a 1 this year, and does Davidson seems to be gearing up for another Giant Kill.

Jordan Brenner

(1:57 PM)

This doesn't look like the year for a 16 over a 1. Before the conference tournaments last year, we actually thought it could happen, but then a lot of potential GKs lost in those tourneys and didn't make the Big Dance. This year, there's a much weaker overall field of potential Killers, so chances are the 16 seeds will be particularly poorly positioned to beat a 1-seed.As far as Davidson goes, our model has liked them a lot in the past, but not this season. They're just lousy defensively, don't force turnovers and don't get offensive rebounds.

chad (orlando)

Can we ban Bryan from Springdale from this chat. He is being ridiculous.

Jordan Brenner

(1:57 PM)

Personally, I find him entertaining. But yes, keep the better questions coming.

Charles (San Jose)

Have you done any analysis on how legit top 15 teams with poor schedules (Wichita State this year and several past Gonzaga teams among others) fare compared with teams from the major conferences?

Jordan Brenner

(1:59 PM)

So, we haven't found conference affiliation to be a predictor when it comes to being a safe Giant. On the other hand, schedule strength is built into our model. Each team is assigned a power rating, much in the way the BPI or KenPom measures teams. And those models evaluate teams on the basis of the schedules the play. So, one of the reasons why Wichita State looks vulnerable is that they have played a weak schedule.

Jordan Brenner

(2:00 PM)

We've got time for another question or two, then closing up shop.

Bryan (Springdale, AR)

Chad in Orlando is upset because he agrees that when a Cinderella is a dud in their exit game that the tourney would have been better off if a higher seed had played in that game. We need to have the first 2 round of the tourney, then if a 1 or 2 seed lost in the opening round, they get to get back in the tourney and replace the Giant Killer that got lucky and beat them. That's only fair to the fans.

Jordan Brenner

(2:02 PM)

And on that note, that's all for us at GK Central. We'll see you around here next week. In the meantime, hit us up on the blog or on Twitter.